My presentation will take the discussants through my classroom approach to two basic intentional torts cases, and statutory materials on wrongful death. In each instance, I will explain how the materials can be used to teach students about how the tort law looks at gay people, and how spending time on this issue enhances the students' understanding of the legal doctrine under consideration. Further detail is set forth below.

In teaching Torts, I cover two intentional tort cases in which the sexual orientation of the plaintiff or the defendant emerged as a significant factor in the court's analysis. I would work through one of these cases in much the same way as I do during class, adding further insight as to its effectiveness as a teaching tool. Logan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 466 So.2d 121 (Ala. 1985), involved an openly gay plaintiff who was called "queer" during a telephone call from a Sears employee concerning the plaintiff's account. The Alabama Supreme Court upheld the lower court's determination that the statement was not sufficiently outrageous to pass the tort's threshold. But it then went further, holding that the standard for whether the comments were outrageous was to be measured by the standard of a "general reasonable person" - not whether it would be so regarded by a member of the targeted group.

Among the questions I address in covering this case, and that I plan to discuss, are:

• Whether the trial court was correct in concluding that this "mere insult" should not trigger legal protection? In this regard, is it relevant that the plaintiff and the defendant were in a contractual relationship?

• Do we know anything about the inflection that the Sears employee used in making her comment? Should that be relevant? Why or why not? Would it make a difference to a jury?

• Whether the Alabama Supreme Court was correct in stating that the standard should be that of the "general" reasonable person, as opposed to the reasonable member of the targeted group? (Would the court have reached the same conclusion if a similarly insulting comment were directed at, say, a woman? an African-American? Should it make any difference whether members of the targeted group use the offensive term in relating to each other?)

I will be interested in hearing how other professors would deal with such actual student comments as: "If we're going to look at the 'reasonable gay person,' why not the reasonable murderer or insane person?"

The second part of the presentation will focus on wrongful death law, which I cover in Advanced Torts. In analyzing the statutes, I will use (as in class) the example of same-sex couples to illustrate some of the more general problems with these laws. For instance: Can same-sex couples do anything to protect their interests under wrongful death laws? Why not? From there, we "fan out" to consider whether wrongful death statutes - which often limit recovery to those entitled to take under the law of intestacy - are in need of updating. Students quickly see that the laws don't protect anyone who is not in certain recognized relationships, the presence of a will notwithstanding. We then talk about reform in such states as Vermont and California, and ask how far they go towards solving the problem.

The issue of tort (or tort-like) compensation for surviving members of same-sex couples has also arisen under the Victim Compensation Fund ("VCF"), which arose out of the events of Sept. 11, and my presentation will discuss ways of integrating that statute - and its effect on legally unrecognized couples - with the discussion on whether wrongful death laws need to be amended. Since the VCF is an uneasy mix of corrective and distributive justice, I would discuss how consideration of these concepts in such a timely and charged context elicits student involvement and insight to an unusually high degree.